The Faramir change makes complete sense when you think about it, and just about every character was changed in a minor way to accommodate the fact that he couldn't put every single character in.

The changes made to Eomer and the battle at Helms Deep, not introducing Erkenbrand, i can understand. But Faramir was always the good, numenorian character, who acted good and let Frodo pass against orders, because he knew it was right. Faramir wasn't tempted by the ring. Complete difference to Boromir.

Don't get me wrong. I like the films very much, but it sucks to see things altered.

Just hope the waiting time will be worth it. And hell i like to see the Lonely Mountain and Dale and compare them to the images i made when i first read the book.

But Faramir was always the good, numenorian character, who acted good and let Frodo pass against orders, because he knew it was right. Faramir wasn't tempted by the ring. Complete difference to Boromir.

Don't get me wrong. I like the films very much, but it sucks to see things altered.

The thing about Faramir in the book is that he is static. A bit of a mystery at first, but once we get to know him nothing ever changes. That can be boring. In addition, Peter Jackson had just spent like 9 hours establishing how evil and tempting The Ring is, and how it absolutely corrupts people with all the power it has and that no one can be trusted with it. Faramir completely breaks that down, you destroy any credibility the ring has when a character says "I wouldn't touch it if it lay by the wayside" (or something to that effect). Those 9 hours have crossed some of the most powerful people in Middle Earth, if not the most powerful, and every single one of them who knew anything about The Ring was terrified of the power it had and what it might do. Gandalf and Galadriel were both offered the ring, but considering that they are arguably the two wisest people in all of Middle Earth, it makes sense that they'd know to refuse it because of what it would do. Faramir shouldn't know that, he's a soldier (albeit a well educated and gentlemanly one, but still a soldier).

What Faramir saw was a chance to step out of his brother's shadow, to do something that Boromir could not, and potentially save his country that he loves so dearly. In the film it is completely in character of him to take that chance, and it provides him an opportunity to then right his wrongs. He still does what his brother can't in that he lets Frodo and The Ring go, but it makes more sense because he only does that after he's seen just what The Ring does; instead of an overnight decision that honestly doesn't really fit with the overall lore.

With regards to things changing, the trilogy is about as faithful as you're ever going to get with a book-to-movie adaption without the movie being absolute shit. Word for word adaptations just don't work when you change mediums.

Pffff... Who needs Aragorn when you have Bard. They are almost the same character. Having Aragorn would overshadow Bard. Besides the fact that The Hobbit takes place more then 60 years before LOTR. Aragorn would not even be born yet. The elves being there makes sense since they live forever. There is also alot that happens behind the scenes involving the elves and it only mentioned in passing in The Hobbit. I have a feeling this is the area Jackson is going to expand upon to make the book into two movies.

Actually he was alive at that point. I forget right now, but by the time of the War of the ring Aragorn was well over 100 years old.

---------- Post added 2011-07-08 at 11:33 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Toho

1) there is no Boromir
5) there is no Witch King.

I am not watching this.

We don't know that for certain. During The Hobbit Gandalf leave Bilbo and the Dwarves to go counter the evil force growing in southern Mirkwood at Dul Guldor, which, if I am not mistaken is the Witch King.

Its not really covered in the book, Gandalf is just absent for a portion of the novel. Its could be Jackson actually spends some time on the battle...to fill 2 flims it may well be needed.

Orwell was almost exactly wrong in a strange way. He thought the world would end with Big Brother watching us, but it ended with us watching Big Brother.

Actually he was alive at that point. I forget right now, but by the time of the War of the ring Aragorn was well over 100 years old.

In The Fellowship of the Ring, Aragorn joined Frodo Baggins, Bilbo's adopted heir, and three of his friends at the Inn of the Prancing Pony in Bree. These four had set out from the Shire to bring the One Ring to Rivendell. Aragorn, going by the nickname Strider, was then aged 87, nearing the prime of life for one of royal Númenórean descent. With Aragorn's help the Hobbits escaped the pursuing Nazgûl and reached Rivendell.

Which would mean that he is a little too young to do anything, since Bilbo's 111th birthday is when Frodo became of age (33), he kept the ring hidden for 17 years, so he would have been 50 when they set out. Bilbo had his adventure when he was 50, so that means that the difference between the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings is about 78 years, which would make Aragorn about 9 when the events of the Hobbit took place.

I'd be more excited about this movie if it wasn't been made by Peter Jackson...and wasn't a prequel.....and wasn't an adaptation of a Tolkien book....In short, if it wasn't The Hobbit, I'd be excited for it. (Just in case you tripped up on my words, I'm not excited, nor looking forward to it in anyway, shape or form.)

Can't wait for it, I loved lotr and Peter Jackson is an incredibly good film maker. In my opinion he have everything to make this film a success and you can believe me when I say I'm damn going to see this film as soon as I can.

I'd be more excited about this movie if it wasn't been made by Peter Jackson...and wasn't a prequel.....and wasn't an adaptation of a Tolkien book....In short, if it wasn't The Hobbit, I'd be excited for it. (Just in case you tripped up on my words, I'm not excited, nor looking forward to it in anyway, shape or form.)

Care to elaborate as to why you feel this way? Seems a little redundant to basically make a post to say "I'm not looking forward to this movie." without actually explaining why those points you've given are a problem.

or are you just trolling?

Orwell was almost exactly wrong in a strange way. He thought the world would end with Big Brother watching us, but it ended with us watching Big Brother.

Care to elaborate as to why you feel this way? Seems a little redundant to basically make a post to say "I'm not looking forward to this movie." without actually explaining why those points you've given are a problem.

or are you just trolling?

Not trolling in the slightest (I like how my post saying i'm not looking fforward to it seems redundant when in the thread there's people going "squee! so excited!" and such and not giving reasons as to why...same thing really...but I digress), to elaborate, Peter Jackson is a terrible director. I respect the cinematography of the LOTR trilogy, the forced perspective and sets were a great moment for cinema...but in my opinion, thats the only thing the first movie had going for it. Second movie, I can't even remember anything. Battle at Helms Deep was the highlight and it was the most generic tower siege that could've been plucked from any fantasy setting. Third Movie, I've never actually been able to watch the whole way through, it's so turgid and uninspired.

That said, it's not all his fault, as you can see from my third reason, it's bad because it's based on Tolkien. Tolkien was a linguist, he studied languages, he was so good at it he could even invent a few of his own, with proper grammar and syntax, and to be honest, I can respect him for that. But his stories are terrible. He rambles on and on, to the point where it goes beyond being even a stream of conciousness style of writing. At times, it looks like he's being paid per word, because there's just so much unnecessary description of inconsequential fluff in his writing.

As for it being a prequel....I just don't like prequels. Too often they're just playing on people's appreciation of the original piece of work, normally on one of the fringe characters who's developed a cult status.

As for it being a prequel....I just don't like prequels. Too often they're just playing on people's appreciation of the original piece of work, normally on one of the fringe characters who's developed a cult status.

Of course, that's all just my opinion of the franchise.

You seem to know a bit about Tolkien so I am guessing that you know this as well, but The Hobbit is not a prequel. It was written first. Now, that doesn't mean the movie version won't play up the connections to the other movies.